Discussion Forums

Peter Cruise · July 28th, 2002, 06:18 PM

So-does anyone have any theories why number of entries is low relative to, say, Baltimore? 9-11? Economy? Cleveland?

Laura Kessler · July 28th, 2002, 08:01 PM

Hi Peter,
You are absolutely correct that we do not have as many swimmers as they did in Baltimore two years ago. I was there and Barb (meet director) and everyone else did a great job in that they handled that many swimmers in ONE POOL. Frankly, we are grateful that we have an optimum number of swimmers (1020+).

Here are the number of entrants for the past LCN:

2001 - Seattle - 959

1999 - Minneapolis - 949

1998 - Ft. Lauderdale - 922

1997 - Orlando - 881

1996 - Ann Arbor - 1176

1995 - Gresham (OR) - 1010

1994 - Buffalo - 716

1993 - Minneapolis - 1085

Attendance is terrific considering 911 and the other factors that you have listed!!!!!

Laura Kessler

P.S. It's gonna be fun. THAT I guarantee.

KenChertoff · July 28th, 2002, 09:10 PM

Based on the numbers Laura listed, it seems that Baltimore's attendance was anomalously high. My theory is that this was because Baltimore is in the Boston-NY-Washington corridor. This is the most densely populated region of the United States and, not coincidently, has a high concentration of Masters swimmers.

Since Rutgers University, in New Jersey, is right in the middle of this region, we may see a similarly high attendance next year.

Peter Cruise · July 28th, 2002, 09:13 PM

I don't doubt that it will be fun (fellow posters already planning big beer-up; Ion to demonstrate rapid reply techniques), but one of the reasons I didn't come (in my year of aging up!) was fear of encountering the sheer numbers that showed up in Baltimore (something in the vicinity of 1500-1600 wasn't it?) Also for me, the economy had a great impact as well. So, considering the great population bases to draw upon for several of the past LCNats, was the Baltimore turnout an aberration?

Denise Brown · July 29th, 2002, 01:14 PM

IF THE NUMBERS ARE SO LOW FOR CLEVELAND, THEN WHY WAS THE 6TH EVENT DROPPPED?

KenChertoff · July 29th, 2002, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Denise Brown
IF THE NUMBERS ARE SO LOW FOR CLEVELAND, THEN WHY WAS THE 6TH EVENT DROPPPED?

Actually, if you leave Baltimore out of the average, the entries for Cleveland are fairly high and definitely above average.

Steve · July 30th, 2002, 02:17 PM

Quote:

The Championship Committtee has decided to invoke the sixth event rule as a result of the number of swimmers entered in the meet and the projected long time lines.

What is the estimated time we are saving each day by dropping the 6th event? How many swimmers losing an event?

July 28th, 2002, 06:18 PM	#1
Peter Cruise Very Active Member Peter Cruise Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Nanaimo, B.C. Canada Posts: 1,793	low attendance in Cleveland So-does anyone have any theories why number of entries is low relative to, say, Baltimore? 9-11? Economy? Cleveland?

July 29th, 2002, 01:14 PM	#5
Denise Brown Participating Member Denise Brown Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Napoleon, OH Posts: 11	NATIONALS IF THE NUMBERS ARE SO LOW FOR CLEVELAND, THEN WHY WAS THE 6TH EVENT DROPPPED?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 28th, 2002, 08:01 PM	#2
Laura Kessler Active Member Laura Kessler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Brecksville, Ohio Posts: 58	Hi Peter, You are absolutely correct that we do not have as many swimmers as they did in Baltimore two years ago. I was there and Barb (meet director) and everyone else did a great job in that they handled that many swimmers in ONE POOL. Frankly, we are grateful that we have an optimum number of swimmers (1020+). Here are the number of entrants for the past LCN: 2001 - Seattle - 959 1999 - Minneapolis - 949 1998 - Ft. Lauderdale - 922 1997 - Orlando - 881 1996 - Ann Arbor - 1176 1995 - Gresham (OR) - 1010 1994 - Buffalo - 716 1993 - Minneapolis - 1085 Attendance is terrific considering 911 and the other factors that you have listed!!!!! Laura Kessler P.S. It's gonna be fun. THAT I guarantee.

July 28th, 2002, 09:10 PM	#3
KenChertoff Very Active Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 205	Based on the numbers Laura listed, it seems that Baltimore's attendance was anomalously high. My theory is that this was because Baltimore is in the Boston-NY-Washington corridor. This is the most densely populated region of the United States and, not coincidently, has a high concentration of Masters swimmers. Since Rutgers University, in New Jersey, is right in the middle of this region, we may see a similarly high attendance next year.

July 28th, 2002, 09:13 PM	#4
Peter Cruise Very Active Member Peter Cruise Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Nanaimo, B.C. Canada Posts: 1,793	I don't doubt that it will be fun (fellow posters already planning big beer-up; Ion to demonstrate rapid reply techniques), but one of the reasons I didn't come (in my year of aging up!) was fear of encountering the sheer numbers that showed up in Baltimore (something in the vicinity of 1500-1600 wasn't it?) Also for me, the economy had a great impact as well. So, considering the great population bases to draw upon for several of the past LCNats, was the Baltimore turnout an aberration?